Jump to content

Eagerly awaited aircraft for DCS World


Recommended Posts

Yeah, honestly I think ED should have focused on the 80s/early 90's for their planeset instead of the early 2000's.

 

It would have also achieved Nick Grey's whole "goal" of "dogfighting" without having to push the various absurdisms that they have foisted on us over the years to Nerf Fox3 BVR stuff.

 

I mean 70s/80's was all about you get 1 crappy BVR shot on the way in and then to the merge with fox2's.

 

Plus the aircraft were much more closely matched during the cold war as well.

 

Agree 100%.

 

we need more 70s and 80s, not more XXI century planes...

hell, 60´s would be amazing also ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Not going to make everyone happy, that is impossible, if multicrew or the apache is not for you no problem.    For those who are excited its going to be great, the messages I have been getti

Yet there are still some good news for us Soviet/Russian planes lovers on Russian section of ED Discord. Seems like early MiG-29 really is going to be done. Now that's the eagerly awaited module for m

I’ve copied my post from the newsletter thread, as I think the same perception exists here that there aren’t many helo drivers around here:   I know many wanted the F4, Tornado, or a mo

Yeah, honestly I think ED should have focused on the 80s/early 90's for their planeset instead of the early 2000's.

 

It would have also achieved Nick Grey's whole "goal" of "dogfighting" without having to push the various absurdisms that they have foisted on us over the years to Nerf Fox3 BVR stuff.

 

I mean 70s/80's was all about you get 1 crappy BVR shot on the way in and then to the merge with fox2's.

 

Plus the aircraft were much more closely matched during the cold war as well.

 

Yeah agree about 5 million percent.

 

But let's be honest, more modern, more low hanging fruit from a marketing perspective. If a 2000s + aircraft is, let's throw about 15-20 percent more effort than an 80s-90s one, but a whole lot more people will jump on them because modern, including those who weren't in DCS before, I suppose it is understandable to go for them instead.

 

But honestly, I'd much prefer if there would be much, much more 60s to 90s modules coming up instead.

Modules:

MiG-21Bis, Fw-190D, Bf-109K, P-51D, F-86F, Ka-50, UH-1H, Mi-8MTV2, Hawk T1A, C-101, FC3, A-10C, CA, Mirage 2000C, Gazelle, L-39, MiG-15Bis, F-5E, AJS 37 Viggen, Yak-52, Christen Eagle II, MiG-19, I-16, JF-17, F-14, F/A-18C, Fw-190A8, AV-8B/NA, Spitifre IX

 

Mods:

A-4E, MB-339, Edge 540

 

Utility modules:

Combined Arms, NS 430 GPS

Link to post
Share on other sites

The ship of having something like a 'planeset' that is in any shape way or form consistent to form a scenario that could be played from various sides, has sailed a long, long, long time ago, got lost in the Bermuda Triangle, mysteriously re-appeared in port, had the fate of its crew investigated, the insurance sum paid, has been scrapped for metal, the metal re-used for cooking utensils and several of these lost when friends helped moving house since.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, honestly I think ED should have focused on the 80s/early 90's for their planeset instead of the early 2000's.

 

Isn't that "mostly" exactly what they've done? I mean I understand our 18 is a little after that but I think if you limit the weapons you take with it it's pretty close to a 90's 18 right? Same with the 16 right?

 

I mean... in the 2000's wasn't the navy largely flying the super hornet? The AF was just loosely hanging onto the 16 waiting on the F35 delays...

 

I'm just saying that aside from available ordinance we really have the airframes you desire... but with the ability to run them into the 2000's if we desire also...

 

No?

 

I'm not an aviation history buff (or a strict timeline purist...) so maybe I'm missing something. Aside from the S/N's our 18 and 16 are pretty much the same thing as was used in the 90's?

Win-10 x64

 

Nvidia RTX2080 (HP Reverb)

Asus Prime X570P

AMD 3800x

32GB G-Skill RipJaw 3600

 

Saitek X-65F and Fanatec Club-Sport Pedals

Using VJoy and UCR to remap Throttle and Clutch into Rudder axis

Link to post
Share on other sites

But let's be honest, more modern, more low hanging fruit from a marketing perspective. If a 2000s + aircraft is, let's throw about 15-20 percent more effort than an 80s-90s one [...]

 

Is that really through though? If ED made the F/A-18A and F-16A, both aircraft would probably have been out of early access within a few months of their initial release and ED would be free to peruse new (paying) projects. Now these aircraft are in stuck in early access for years with ED mostly working on avionics subsystems.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Red planes ASAP! Nonclickable Mig31 and Su 35 please ED just fricken do it allready. It would be 2 bestsellers of all nonclickable modules!

Anybody who`d like to fly these jets please comment and give high rate this thread:

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=278780

 

If they're non-clickable, why bother??

HP Z230 - Win10 Pro, i7-4770@3.30Ghz, 16GB RAM, EVO 860 1TB SSD, PNY GTX 1060 XLR8 6GB, X52 Pro, Odyssey+ VR/TrackIR5

DCS World - Ka-50, A-10C, P-51D, FC3, Combined Arms, UH-1H, NTTR, Normandy, WWII Assets, Persian Gulf, F-16C, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV2, SA342, NS430, Spitfire LF Mk. IX, Christen Eagle II, F-14, Bf 109K-4, AV-8B, Misc campaigns, MB-339, A-4E, AJS-37, M-2000C, A-10C II

On My Radar - The Typhoon, and I'm hoping for a Norway map to go with it!!

Link to post
Share on other sites
If they're non-clickable, why bother??

 

For those who fly FC3 planes wouldn`t be an issue. If so then why not? Plus we`d have solid Red force to fly against. They are no where near to be a match for Bluefor. Red team with all missing planes pus their earliest versions of present jets is in very bad shape for even dreaming about parity. Not a worthy adversary! Put in one word - incomplete.


Edited by musolo

----RED FLAG---- DCS Server. Discord: https://discord.gg/2PjQ52V

Link to post
Share on other sites
Red planes ASAP! Nonclickable Mig31 and Su 35 please ED just fricken do it allready. It would be 2 bestsellers of all nonclickable modules!

Anybody who`d like to fly these jets please comment and give high rate this thread:

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=278780

 

As someone who would love to get many, many more red aircraft, this would be such a shame to see... low fidelity renditions of aircraft that can only have questionable accuracy.

Modules:

MiG-21Bis, Fw-190D, Bf-109K, P-51D, F-86F, Ka-50, UH-1H, Mi-8MTV2, Hawk T1A, C-101, FC3, A-10C, CA, Mirage 2000C, Gazelle, L-39, MiG-15Bis, F-5E, AJS 37 Viggen, Yak-52, Christen Eagle II, MiG-19, I-16, JF-17, F-14, F/A-18C, Fw-190A8, AV-8B/NA, Spitifre IX

 

Mods:

A-4E, MB-339, Edge 540

 

Utility modules:

Combined Arms, NS 430 GPS

Link to post
Share on other sites
As someone who would love to get many, many more red aircraft, this would be such a shame to see... low fidelity renditions of aircraft that can only have questionable accuracy.

 

I get it man. You`d like to have clickable active service russian jets. You know better than all of us here that it`s not gonna happen. Same way US won`t allow for F35 snd F22 to be full fidelity. Do you doubt accuracy of russian aircraft present in the game? Plus main reason for these 2 birds is to heal crippled multyplayer.

----RED FLAG---- DCS Server. Discord: https://discord.gg/2PjQ52V

Link to post
Share on other sites

Much as I can understand the wishing for a competative modern Redforce and acknowledging the lack of it in DCS , I really hope whatever it is , its not any other 4gen or newer ,be it Red or Blue.

Because its glaringly obviously that ED is already in way over their head with their two 4gen projects and I absolutely don't see them successfully doing another.

It would be literally years in developement , slow everything down even more and sap ressources from the badly needed overhaul..

 

So hoping for a somewhat simpler, cold war 3rd gen or something that can be completed quicker without years for DDI sub-pages, 20 radar modes and 300 mio weapon combos.

 

But I think they probably might go again for big PR-announcement and marketing hyperbole- I.e. F-35 or something along those lines.

 

Regards,

Snappy

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, honestly I think ED should have focused on the 80s/early 90's for their planeset instead of the early 2000's.

 

It would have also achieved Nick Grey's whole "goal" of "dogfighting" without having to push the various absurdisms that they have foisted on us over the years to Nerf Fox3 BVR stuff.

 

I mean 70s/80's was all about you get 1 crappy BVR shot on the way in and then to the merge with fox2's.

 

Plus the aircraft were much more closely matched during the cold war as well.

Can't really agree here. I of course understand it's a matter of personal taste, but I actually really enjoy modern avionics. Sensor management, datalink, target sorting, sensor fusion etc. I understand these systems are far harder to code than 80s tech, but as someone working in STEM, I also find most 80s tech to be very basic. Nothing against the folks who like it, fo course. But what drew me to DCS in the first place was the A-10C, with its sophisticated avionics suite and modern systems.

 

Plus, modern fighters are pushing ED's developers forward, into more complex system and network modeling and that's always a good thing. Imagine if one day, they could utilize their datalink code in order to simulate an IADS, for example. Or build upon the current code and include other assets as donors, such as Aegis cruisers.

The vCVW-17 is looking for Hornet and Tomcat pilots and RIOs. Join the vCVW-17 Discord.

1197644828_Screen_200911_044202-Copy.png.74d8c09ee9060cffd7408a75ab2c13ef.png

Z370 Aorus Gaming 7, i7-8700K, 2080Ti FTW3 Ultra, 32GB DDR4, 960 Pro, 970 Evo Plus, WD Gold 6TB, Seasonic Prime Platinum

F/A-18C, AV-8B, JF-17, A-10C (C II), M-2000C, F-16C, F-14, BS2, UH-1H, P-51D, Sptifire, FC3

Link to post
Share on other sites
Is that really through though? If ED made the F/A-18A and F-16A, both aircraft would probably have been out of early access within a few months of their initial release and ED would be free to peruse new (paying) projects. Now these aircraft are in stuck in early access for years with ED mostly working on avionics subsystems.

 

Yeah, I think ED mostly shot themselves in the foot with going too modern too fast. I mean we had the whole F5 v mig 21 thing forever, with the M2k/viggen thrown in the mix.

 

Going from that technology wise, it would have been a much better idea to develop 80's era jets like the F16A, F18A and F15A, A10A vs the then FC3 mig 29/ su27.

 

FM wise we know ED can do the work, and the avionics on those birds were much simpler, yes more "knobs" and dials. But really the F16A would have been a very simple plane to do and with the proper Doug masters memes probably very popular.

 

Then you could ease into PGM's with the earlier generation TGP's (which well sucked relative to what we have now, but it would have provided some of the same capability).

 

And you could pretty credibly do the early mig29A and Su-27 for opfor, not to mention the 23.

 

 

Also, I think from a sales standpoint its pretty much suicidal for them to do the earlier stuff now and ask full price for it. I think far fewer people will want to buy a F16 Block 25 or 30 now that the 50 is here and does way more. Because for a good chunk of the community they want the "I win" button on the latest uber plane.

 

I honestly think if they did lets say something like a mid block F16A it would have sold at full price, then a Block 30 F16C also sold at full price, and then block 50 F16C at some "upgrade price from the block 30". It would have totally worked, development would have been simpler in many ways since you aren't adding too much functionality at once but rather in pretty well defined "eatable" Blocs.

 

I mean consider the F16A vs the F5E we had. APG-66 radar was the big "improvement" radar wise, so you spend a decent time developing the new radar model for it, including ground modes, and lets say you are also doing the APG-65 for the hornet, you add some TWS modes as well. The 16A didn't really use much in the way of fancy PGM's but did have some decent additions of CCIP/CCRP modes for dumb bombs (so you can accurately implement that tech rather than the arcade mode stuff we had/have). And of course everyone's favorite mavs. Then for the Bloc30 ish Viper you can make it the night attack version and add lantrin, your radar development is mostly done since the 68 did add a few things, but was fairly close to the 65 on the hornet. You redo the aero/engine of course. And for the coup-de-grace, you add in a properly modeled AAMRAM. Plus your "learning" curve on that A/C is significantly shorter since you already know some of the pitfalls of making its junior brother.

 

The community of course buys the A viper because its new and shiny, and the Block 30 because its "much more capable", and the same goes for the 50.

 

But now we have the Bloc 50 for better or worse. And I really don't think the majority of the customer base is gonna full price for an earlier bloc, or 16A. So those never get made.


Edited by Harlikwin

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to post
Share on other sites
Isn't that "mostly" exactly what they've done? I mean I understand our 18 is a little after that but I think if you limit the weapons you take with it it's pretty close to a 90's 18 right? Same with the 16 right?

 

I mean... in the 2000's wasn't the navy largely flying the super hornet? The AF was just loosely hanging onto the 16 waiting on the F35 delays...

 

I'm just saying that aside from available ordinance we really have the airframes you desire... but with the ability to run them into the 2000's if we desire also...

 

No?

 

I'm not an aviation history buff (or a strict timeline purist...) so maybe I'm missing something. Aside from the S/N's our 18 and 16 are pretty much the same thing as was used in the 90's?

 

I mean the Airforce is still flying the F16 today... And worldwide there are still legacy hornet operators. But unfortunately no, there is decent sized gulf from what was flying in the 80's vs what we have. Aside form the "C" designation, the jets we have are far more advanced than what was flying in the late 80's and early-mid 90's with the same designation.

 

For the early lot F18C's,

No datalink (the big one).

 

TGP: And while a few of early F18C's did have nighthawk pods, there were 2 pods that took up 2 stations, and generally were pretty poor from a performance standpoint. Even a 1999 vintage Litening (first version) was much more basic than what we have now.

 

Navigation suite was also much more basic, no fancy moving map for instance or GPS etc.

 

No JHMC's either.

 

Weapons integration wise, it depends on when, but variously no AAMRAMs, No JSOW/JDAM, SLAM-ER. Limited GBU ability (unless with the nitehawk pods).

 

The various MFD pages were also much more basic than what we have now.

 

Radar wasn't fully fleshed out either.

 

The Viper is even more convoluted, but consider that we have the Block50 viper... And the early C's started at block 25.

 

So, our viper has better, radar, a much bigger engine for a start, and I think a whole different intake geometry. So overall the engine model and FM would be somewhat different.

 

No Link 16

No NVG compatible cockpit for most of them

Weapon wise, of course no Fox3's, no JDAM/JSOW etc.

TGP if any would be limited to the old lantrin etc.

MFD's were simpler/less useful etc.

No HMTS

APG68v1 vs V5 (v1 was less capable)

 

And while I agree that to a point you can "sort-of" simulate some of the simpler things by limiting weapons (what a few online servers do for the 80's). The actual avionics give these fighters alot of advantages in those early scenarios that they wouldn't have IMO. Especially datalink, and the better TGP's and radars. Not to mention the nav system stuff.

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to post
Share on other sites
Can't really agree here. I of course understand it's a matter of personal taste, but I actually really enjoy modern avionics. Sensor management, datalink, target sorting, sensor fusion etc. I understand these systems are far harder to code than 80s tech, but as someone working in STEM, I also find most 80s tech to be very basic. Nothing against the folks who like it, fo course. But what drew me to DCS in the first place was the A-10C, with its sophisticated avionics suite and modern systems.

 

Plus, modern fighters are pushing ED's developers forward, into more complex system and network modeling and that's always a good thing. Imagine if one day, they could utilize their datalink code in order to simulate an IADS, for example. Or build upon the current code and include other assets as donors, such as Aegis cruisers.

 

I get where you are coming from. But really are any of these super modern systems modeled with any decent level of detail? I mean when I look at the current FLIR picture I pretty much want to get off the bus. Not to mention the magical coordinate generating capabilities. Or our magically guiding fox3's that we had for years and years.

 

On the datalink thing, while IRL yes, its an important part of a real world IADS net as well. I don't think ED is gonna bother trying to do that with their spagetti code. If we get IADS it will be its own "magically approximated" thing.

 

Given that the systems are somewhat simpler combined with actual good documentation and still living pilots, I think doing earlier eras technology at a higher fidelity would have been a much better way to go. Plus it gives you somewhere to actually go. I mean we aren't getting a f35 or F22 anytime soon IMO.

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Multyplayer state is broken. There are crouds of F14s noob tubing living shit out of everything that moves out there. And half of Blue planes endup on Red side. To remedy complete uslessness of Reds. When you talk about F14 - Mig 31 is only worthy adversary. Same interceptor role same punch.

SU 27M/35 has upgraded fox 2 and 3 with better chareateristics. And can compete with nato planes. As for time and effort to make them. These are easyest birds for ED to make coz they allready have them.

These two platforms needed in MP solely to provide Reds with R77M and R-37 missiles. To remedy their catastrophic helplessness. And it seems one little thing is forgotteen here.

-It`s a digital COMBAT simulator first and foremost.

----RED FLAG---- DCS Server. Discord: https://discord.gg/2PjQ52V

Link to post
Share on other sites
Isn't our Su-27 the "S" variant already? We need something a little more modern IMHO, such as the "SM" or "SM3" variant, or even better, the baseline Su-35 (or one of its its derivatives).

 

Yes, we have the first serial production Su-27S model. But everything after that has a glass cockpit. Su-27 went very modern very rapidly. So while already a next variant wouldn't be like ours by the displays (datalinks, RWR, radar etc).

i7-8700k, 32GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 2x 2080S SLI 8GB, Oculus Rift S.

i7-8700k, 16GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 1080Ti 11GB, 27" 4K, 65" HDR 4K.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Because its glaringly obviously that ED is already in way over their head with their two 4gen projects and I absolutely don't see them successfully doing another.

It would be literally years in developement , slow everything down even more and sap ressources from the badly needed overhaul..

 

So hoping for a somewhat simpler, cold war 3rd gen or something that can be completed quicker without years for DDI sub-pages, 20 radar modes and 300 mio weapon combos.

 

I love this post. We need new FC4 planes: Su30, Su35, Su24, Su34. Or, we need FF cold war Red jets: Phantom, Flogger, Foxbat, Fitter.

 

Who is calling the shots at ED? What is the vision for the future? Currently we have Blue v Blue Red Flag scenarios over a Georgia/Russia map. There is nothing wrong with that if that's what consumers want.

 

My only disagreement is that the Hornet is a smashing success. Not finished but a wonderful product. Have not bought the Viper yet but I have been impressed by seeing it in MP and videos. It will be a success eventually.

F86F/FA18C/KA50/CA/Nevada/Normandy/PG

Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with 3rd gen Redfor stuff is that it's great, but wouldn't address the capability gap between the reds and the blues we have. Especially in A-G role. And we already have MiG-21 and 23 is coming. And problem with modern FC4 stuff is that it's doubtful that they can have all of their much wanted functionality unleashed without full-fidelity systems model, or, at the very least, a clickable cockpit. Too many interactions with planes systems are needed to use keypad. Maybe I'm wrong though.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Multyplayer state is broken. There are crouds of F14s noob tubing living shit out of everything that moves out there. And half of Blue planes endup on Red side. To remedy complete uslessness of Reds. When you talk about F14 - Mig 31 is only worthy adversary. Same interceptor role same punch.

SU 27M/35 has upgraded fox 2 and 3 with better chareateristics. And can compete with nato planes. As for time and effort to make them. These are easyest birds for ED to make coz they allready have them.

These two platforms needed in MP solely to provide Reds with R77M and R-37 missiles. To remedy their catastrophic helplessness. And it seems one little thing is forgotteen here.

-It`s a digital COMBAT simulator first and foremost.

 

The problem with the F14, is that while the kinematics of the phoenix are sort of decently modeled (aside from the odd stupid high G turns). Its using the old missile API, meaning things like magic tracking and INS. Which result in unrealistic "launch and leave" tactics. IRL the missile needed to be fully supported until active which required the RIO to do it (at least the A's did).

 

IF HB actually models the downsides of using the phoenix, especially the A-models, it will be significantly more bearable. And even more bearable if they model the downsides with the AWG-9 radar (Which they are at least starting to do).

 

But really, the main issue with most f14 servers is the widespread avaiability and misuse of the missile. IRL carriers had a pretty limited load of them (~100-200 max or so), and some yeet-fest server they would be gone in in 10 minutes. I mean most shots you see of the F14 actually being used they carry 2, not 4, not 6 (Can't even recover with 6 IIRC).


Edited by Harlikwin

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, I think ED mostly shot themselves in the foot with going too modern too fast. I mean we had the whole F5 v mig 21 thing forever, with the M2k/viggen thrown in the mix.

 

Going from that technology wise, it would have been a much better idea to develop 80's era jets like the F16A, F18A and F15A, A10A vs the then FC3 mig 29/ su27.

 

FM wise we know ED can do the work, and the avionics on those birds were much simpler, yes more "knobs" and dials. But really the F16A would have been a very simple plane to do and with the proper Doug masters memes probably very popular.

 

Then you could ease into PGM's with the earlier generation TGP's (which well sucked relative to what we have now, but it would have provided some of the same capability).

 

And you could pretty credibly do the early mig29A and Su-27 for opfor, not to mention the 23.

 

 

Also, I think from a sales standpoint its pretty much suicidal for them to do the earlier stuff now and ask full price for it. I think far fewer people will want to buy a F16 Block 25 or 30 now that the 50 is here and does way more. Because for a good chunk of the community they want the "I win" button on the latest uber plane.

 

I honestly think if they did lets say something like a mid block F16A it would have sold at full price, then a Block 30 F16C also sold at full price, and then block 50 F16C at some "upgrade price from the block 30". It would have totally worked, development would have been simpler in many ways since you aren't adding too much functionality at once but rather in pretty well defined "eatable" Blocs.

 

I mean consider the F16A vs the F5E we had. APG-66 radar was the big "improvement" radar wise, so you spend a decent time developing the new radar model for it, including ground modes, and lets say you are also doing the APG-65 for the hornet, you add some TWS modes as well. The 16A didn't really use much in the way of fancy PGM's but did have some decent additions of CCIP/CCRP modes for dumb bombs (so you can accurately implement that tech rather than the arcade mode stuff we had/have). And of course everyone's favorite mavs. Then for the Bloc30 ish Viper you can make it the night attack version and add lantrin, your radar development is mostly done since the 68 did add a few things, but was fairly close to the 65 on the hornet. You redo the aero/engine of course. And for the coup-de-grace, you add in a properly modeled AAMRAM. Plus your "learning" curve on that A/C is significantly shorter since you already know some of the pitfalls of making its junior brother.

 

The community of course buys the A viper because its new and shiny, and the Block 30 because its "much more capable", and the same goes for the 50.

 

But now we have the Bloc 50 for better or worse. And I really don't think the majority of the customer base is gonna full price for an earlier bloc, or 16A. So those never get made.

 

Well said. The same also applies to RAZBAM and the Harrier. They could have initially made a simpler Desert Storm-era AV-8B which would have allowed them to concentrate on getting the basic systems done and perhaps get it out of early access after a reasonable time. After achieving this, they could have sold a separate AV-8B N/A at full price for new customers or at a discount for existing Harrier owners, concentrating on all the fancy new year 2000+ avionics features and weapons.

 

Instead this is another aircraft stuck in eternal early access, burning up their company resources without generating new income. The upcoming F-15E is going to be exactly the same...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well said. The same also applies to RAZBAM and the Harrier. They could have initially made a simpler Desert Storm-era AV-8B which would have allowed them to concentrate on getting the basic systems done and perhaps get it out of early access after a reasonable time. After achieving this, they could have sold a separate AV-8B N/A at full price for new customers or at a discount for existing Harrier owners, concentrating on all the fancy new year 2000+ avionics features and weapons.

 

Instead this is another aircraft stuck in eternal early access, burning up their company resources without generating new income. The upcoming F-15E is going to be exactly the same...

 

+1

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm probably an outlier here, but I'd love to see the A-7E and/or the F-8.

 

That said, I'd like to see all modules already released fixed / finished before moving on to new stuff.


Edited by jmarso
Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm probably an outlier here, but I'd love to see the A-7E and/or the F-8.

 

That said, I'd like to see all modules already released fixed / finished before moving on to new stuff.

 

?

What do you mean?

Those two aircraft are already announced by 3rd party and both are already in some early stage of developement.

Agree with your statement of finishing the released modules before ED pushes out new stuff.

 

 

Regards,

 

Snappy

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...